Written by hazzaboy21 on Sunday, 23 October 2011 15:45

Picture the scene. We’ve just drawn a blank at the Emirates against a team that we are expected to beat handsomely. Hoards of fans rush out of the ground disgruntled at another 2 points lost. On the tube journey home you launch into your usual routine of reflecting on the match, assessing the positives and the negatives. Then you hear an increasingly familiar question from a group at the other side of the carriage, “Why doesn’t he just go back to 4-4-2?”

The calls to change to 4-4-2 are definitely becoming more numerous but why is that? One reasons is that, in the Premier League at least, the 4-4-2/4-4-1-1 is in vogue. The Manchester clubs have raced out of the traps using this formation (albeit different variations of the same shape). The red half have done what Sir Alex Ferguson’s teams have so often done in the past and used their pacy wingers to stretch the play while the midfield two of Cleverley/Carrick and Anderson have added positive intent in the middle of the park. Roberto Mancini on the other hand has used a more solid duo in centre midfield as the base on which their creative inverted wingers can attempt to prompt and create havoc in the opposition’s defence.

In fact, considering Liverpool occasionally use 4-4-2 with either Carroll or Kuyt and Suarez leading the line, and keeping in mind Harry Redknapp’s fondness for a classic ‘big man, little man’ pairing up top it could be argued that 4 of last year’s top 6 are facilitating the comeback of 4-4-2. With this in mind and considering our current woes it’s only natural for fans to reminisce of the ‘good old days’ where 4-4-2 was gospel.

Pros of 4-4-2

1. In recent games Robin van Persie has become somewhat isolated. Giving him a striking partner would immediately solve that problem and depending on the particular partner would coax different qualities from his game.

2. Giving van Persie a partner up front would also aid the partner. Chamakh and Park are in direct competition with van Persie for the lone striker role currently. As it’s incredibly unlikely our captain would be dropped, moving to 4-4-2 would give them more game time. Thinking back to Chamakh’s time at Bordeaux he forged a very good partnership with Gourcuff with both of their strengths being complemented by the other individual (Yoann’s prowess at delivering a ball from deep or a set piece with great technical quality and Marouane’s aerial ability).

After the first few occasions that both van Persie and Chamakh played together, where there appeared to be a little tension between the two, there have been brief glimpses more recently of a similar combination forming. Marouane’s latest goal vs Blackburn was very reminiscent of one he may have scored for Bordeaux and it would be interesting to see if the Chamakh of old could be reinvigorated by partnering van Persie upfront.

3. Of course that role of playing up front alongside van Persie could also be taken by Theo Walcott. Not a day passes, it seems, before Theo is once again championing his case for playing as the spearhead of the team. Having been a striker in his youth and with Wenger constantly saying he’ll eventually play there it’s very understandable that Walcott feels this way. In theory his good movement and pace seem suited to that of a classical poacher. I’m not saying for one moment that he would be good as someone like Manchester United’s Javier Hernandez but he does have similar attributes to the lively Mexican.

Consider this recent quote from Arsene discussing Walcott:

“When you look at Theo, he’s a player who you think sometimes ‘he could have contributed more then’, but then you think ‘who scored the goal?’ Him. Or ‘who made the pass?’ It’s him. He’s a player who is efficient.”

This certainly rings true when you think about Theo’s impact in games. He still drifts in and out of games more than one would like but think back to a game and it’s invariably Theo who has been involved in our goals. This is reflected by the stats. Last season, Theo scored a goal once every 189 minutes and assisted a goal every 242 minutes in his 1697 total league minutes. He scored 9 goals and assisted 7 giving him a ‘points’ total of 16. Therefore, in the table below ranking the Premier League players’ attacking efficiency in the 10/11 season he scored a point every 106 mins (1697/16)*.

(Includes players who played > 1500 mins last season)

So, Theo ended the season as the 5th most efficient player in the league in terms of scoring and creating goals. Many factors have to be taken into consideration here including his relatively small number of minutes on the pitch compared to some. Though more minutes could mean more ‘points’, unless he continued to score and assist at the same regularity his efficiency would decrease. The general quality of teammates and position should also be taken into consideration but he compares favourably to other ‘wingers’: A Arshavin 129, A Johnson 170, A Young 180, S Nasri 217, D Silva 233, S Downing 242, G Bale 306 and A Lennon 473. (Out of interest Javier Hernandez also scored 106 but only played 1488 mins).

As long as Walcott keeps this efficiency up there’ll always be that question lingering about whether he’d be able to improve the numbers even further if played upfront.

Cons of 4-4-2

1. 4-4-2 with this group of players is a total unknown and although there is an obvious hope/intrigue that a partner for RvP would aid our potency there’s the other side of the coin where it might disrupt our play for the worse. At the time of writing RvP has scored 23 goals in 25 games in 2011**. Only Cristiano Ronaldo, Mario Gomez and Lionel Messi have better records. Do we dare tinker with that?

2. There’s no guarantee that van Persie’s potential partner would prove more efficient than an extra midfielder and the added possession they would inevitably cause. Take Theo Walcott for example. His shooting and finishing have noticeably improved (29.2% of his total shots were on target last season compared to 26.7% in the 09/10 season and 9.4% of these shots were goals compared to only 3.3% in the previous season)*. However, questions remain over other characteristics needed of a striker. Does he have the touch and the body strength to be able to hold the ball up at the top end of the pitch? Are his runs good enough so as take him away from the attention of defenders who would be marking him closer than usual? These remain doubts in Wenger’s mind I imagine.

3. Looking at our squad in particular I wonder about the suitability of the players to a 4-4-2 formation. Teams that make it work usually have either orthodox or inverted wingers of quality who take on the bulk of the attacking onus. It seems to me that our most natural wide men at the moment (arguably Oxlade-Chamberlain and Miyaichi) are too young and inexperienced.

There’s certainly an argument to take on a more asymmetrical shape using a more orthodox winger/direct forward on one side (eg. Gervinho) and a more creative/hard-working midfielder on the other flank (eg. Ramsey or Rosicky). This is actually the type of structure I prefer in a 4-4-2 and is something we’ve used to good effect in past Wenger midfields. I would again worry about the familiarity of the specific personnel to these positions though.

Tied in with this is the pure number of centre midfielders in our squad. When you add those in our academy and Reserves it would seem quite odd to start using a 4-4-2 formation where a large proportion of these players would become rather redundant. We can’t just discard them all.

4. Finally, a basic tactical point. Simply due to its shape, a 4-4-2 generally has less fluidity and movement than a 4-2-3-1. There can be exceptions to this of course as the Manchester clubs’ attacking play this season has shown. City in particular seem to be joining Villarreal in their utilisation of ‘Brazil’s magic box’, making a 4-2-2-2 in attack. Without such a variation the lower numbers of strata or bands in the system make for fewer possibilities to roam.

This can not only be a hindrance going forward but can also pose problems defensively. Having a formation with fewer strata naturally opens up more space between these bands which can be exploited by the ever-growing number of trequartista’s (no.10s) appearing in world football. In addition to this the 3-man central midfield has become far more popular than when Wenger last implemented 4-4-2. Even when he did so he had Flamini whose incredible stamina and work-rate almost completely compensated for a relative lack of numbers in midfield. We have nobody currently in our squad with the same desirable characteristics which would make a move to 4-4-2 more difficult.

Conclusion

Overall it seems to me that 4-2-3-1 fits our squad and the club as a whole best. Though it would be interesting to see how we’d fare playing 4-4-2, and perhaps there should be a little more flexibility to switch between the two, I think the shortcomings of the system with our current personnel outweigh the advantages. Ultimately we just require our players to become more accustomed with each other in the present system while allowing for more roaming and positional rotation. If this is perfected hopefully we’ll be able to see the best of both worlds.

* Many thanks to Sunny Sandhu (@Sunbeam007 on twitter)

** According to Opta Stats (@OptaJoe on twitter)

If you enjoyed this piece you can follow me on twitter ~> @hazzaboy21

• Add New
• RSS

Comments (25)

• 24-Oct-2011 11:02 | | Anonymous
  

  Really good post lots of detail personaly with are current strikers i think it wise to stick to are current formation as we havent seen park and cham as no confidence would like to see theo given a go though
  
  
  http://theroyalgooner.blogspot.com/

• 24-Oct-2011 11:06 | | rex
  

  I would go for 4-2-3-1

• 24-Oct-2011 11:14 | | gazzap  - and defensively more secure
  

  the 4-4-2 is much better defensively as the full backs are generally far better protected by the winger. we concede a lot of goals, free kicks due to the opposition getting down the flanks and at the full backs too easily. Arsh and Theo do very little defensive work so its like defending with 9 men sometimes.
  RVP is not only isolated at times but we are also far too reliant on him and if he doesn't play no other player can come in and play the lone striker role. Arshavin would find him form again should be given the No 10 role. He thrives in the hole. All that class is currently wasted on the left.
  
  the additional possession we gain from the 3 man midfield is pointless. we just pass it back and forth while the opposition set themselves up defensively. we need a quicker back to front movement of the ball which is not possible in a 4-3-3.

• 24-Oct-2011 11:16 | | MeanLean
  

  Very good piece HB.
  
  If it was back in 2000 where the opposition mainly played 442 and didn't all sit behind the ball then the 4-4-1-1 formation with Theo as the main forward could well work. Can you imagine Theo being tightly marked by two central defenders with no space in behind? What would we be relying on? his technique and link up play? How do we think that would work? I just do not see how that would benefit us.
  
  I still believe that our current system is the correct one for both the team and for Theo as long as Theo can find his form and continue to make inwards runs off full backs where he has more space.
  
  That said, there is certainly room for more flexibility during matches when the 4-2-3-1 isn't working.
  
  As for Chamakh and RVP,. I cannot see them working as a partnership. Both players would take up the same spaces and neither would compliment each other apart from the RVP cross to Chamakh's head but we are not Stoke, that is not our number one game plan.
  
  If we were forced to play 4-4-1-1 (442) then without watching Park I would actually rather see Gervinho alongside RVP rather than Theo as technically he would cope better with tighter marking.

• 24-Oct-2011 11:26 | | RON
  

  I would prefer 4-4-2 with Gervinho and OX as wide men. For me, OX is already better and more consistent than Walcott. Chamakh was proved to be good in heading and OX or even Jenkinson are good in crossing. Why don't make use of it

• 24-Oct-2011 11:35 | | MeanLean
  

  I love the look of Chamberlain, I am guessing that he will be the better player out of he and Walcott but it is very early to make concrete judgements on OX.
  
  Theo plays as a wide striker while the Ox is more of a midfield player or winger. If he can consistently make strikers runs and score goals as well as make assists then I agree, he should replace Theo but I think he needs a little more time to improve, grow and improve himself.

• 24-Oct-2011 11:51 | | richie  - Great thought provoker for the 442 merchants
  

  Now that "Hazzaboy21" is a well thought out article!
  Personally I'm not in favor of rigid systems I like players to be able to move around almost at will. Inter-changing "a la the total football" of the old Ajax system or the newer version that Barca employs. When we played fast attacking football the interchanges were a joy to behold, I loved that system but unfortunately as you've highlighted currently we lack the personel to implement that type of system. All we need at the moment is for our team to become used to playing with each other, fluid interchanging of 4 2 3 1 - 4 3 2 1 or even 4 3 1 2 could follow depending on who's playing or in our case who's injuried.

• 24-Oct-2011 11:57 | | RON
  

  Have watched OX around 4 games. I was really impressed with his every aspects abilities and think he deserved to has more opportunities to proof himself.
  
  Chamakh is hard working striker. He is not efficient now, but basically I think that is because the existing system does not suitable for him. not asking to change the existing system for one or two players, but at least worth to try and see how it work. I really look forward to see OX and Jenkinson crossing and Chamakh heading and give RvP more freedom to build and finish the att
  
  Theo need through pass while at the moment Ramsey is not good enough to fill that role. Without nice through pass, Theo is useless. He is not some one who always can beat def and make some nice crossings (not matter high or low crossing). His crossing may be ever worse than Djourou. I like him, but would rather put him a sub for striker role to build his finishing and ball protection abilities

• 24-Oct-2011 13:11 | | GunnaFiya  - ???
  

  It's quite obvious to me that if we had better players we could play a 4-4-2...
  Wenger blatantly plays this 4-2-3-1 because it compensates for having less quality in the side.
  
  It seems that people have forgotten that we had less of a requirement for better players when we was using the 4-4-2 formation(only needed a flamini replacement & striker) and therefore have endured the lack of success. This may be down to our period in this "self-sustainable model" but it's plain to see the switch in tactics was down to the lack of quality we've have since our stadium move - Wenger saw this - and it has shown consistently.
  
  In our current formation we are prone to more injuries - simply because we require 3 midfielders every game plus 2 winger/strikers and one spearhead of the team. There is just more work to do in this formation(especially because of the shape) and as soon as someone is not pulling their weight in that midfield trio it becomes a greater stress on the defense and the DM. Plus, with the extra midfielder it can be very easy for those in CM to think they can work less than if they was only a 2-man midfield - if you haven't noticed, complacency and switching off is a big issue for this team!
  
  I know we have a lot of central midfielders but, and lets be honest here, there isn't that much quality there anymore and who can you really say is world class? Straight away if you play a 4-4-2 now with a "Arsene variation" you now have better strength in depth, 2 men up top, a two-man midfield that won't become complacent and the ability to double up while retaining the structure of the formation. I could go on and on. Point is: better quality players give you options. There is not point having loads of players in a certain position and then trying to accommodate them - unless, of course, the are TOP QUALITY.
  
  P.s The theo stats/defense part really baffled me. You don't take into account numerous things when comparing to the 'other' players such as injuries etc. and then you mention J.hernandez who in reality was equally efficient with less minutes on the pitch. I really don't get stat mongering because what does it really mean? In this scenario alone Hernandez stats helped win united the title while Theo's helped win arsenal... ... ...
  
  If we can no longer adapt or adopt flexible tactics then don't be surprised to overhear a more familiar questions from the other side of the carriage...

• 24-Oct-2011 13:43 | | hazzaboy21
  

  Re Theo stats. They were simply there to show his efficiency last season which was good. Surely that at least showed his importance to the team in part and opened up the debate as to whether he may show equal or better efficiency upfront? I explained that they don't take everything into account in the paragraph following the table and it is by no means a judge of his current form. This, I hope, was made clear.
  
  You mention complacency and of course this is an issue but it doesn't necessarily get fixed by having one less midfielder. Arguably, if one midfielder in a 2 man centre-midfield "switches off" it can be far more disastrous.
  
  We clearly have issues other than what formation we should play but that is what I wanted to focus on in this piece.

• 24-Oct-2011 13:44 | | hazzaboy21
  

  Thanks for reading!

• 24-Oct-2011 13:54 | | hazzaboy21
  

  Thanks ML.
  
  Can see your reasoning for Gervinho as an option to partner RvP and that could be quite successful. I'd keep in mind his ability to dribble from deep though as it's one of our greatest assets so in a way I wouldn't want to remove that from our game.

• 24-Oct-2011 13:55 | | hazzaboy21
  

  Cheers for the complement, Richie!

• 24-Oct-2011 14:09 | | pizzy05  - Richie read my mind
  

  I had that in mind too. I believe the relative success of the 2002-2005 team is the reason people are clamouring for a return to 4-4-2. However, people seem to forget a few things:
  - that 4-4-2 was successful in highbury due to the size of the pitch.
  - that Wenger made a conscious decision in 2009 to transform the whole Arsenal team formation to 4-3-3(even the academy and female team. and the female team is highly successful). Thus, it is more than just a formation, it is also a brand.
  - that Wenger consciously got players perfectly suited to playing that formation, and has been doing that ever since. - that our 2006 CL run was achieved with a formation akin to 4-3-3!(Reyes-Cesc-Berty-Pires(Ljungberg)-Hleb, with Henry ploughing a lone furrow upfront)4-3-3 is a conscious decision, and it works! We've remained competitive since(regularly making it to latter stages of competitions, we only need to apply ourselves better in difficult times)

• 24-Oct-2011 14:17 | | TrueGooner  - Good article
  

  Good Article by the way. I personally thing there are games that the 442 should be used and games where the 433 should be used. We do not have the personality to play the 433 in big games that is why we sometimes struggle against Chelsea or man-u in recent yrs even when we dominate in the early stages on those games. The personal just isn't enough to last a whole 90 minutes against those teams. that is why in such games especially when there are injuries, which is most often the case when we meet such teams, we need 442 or some variation of it. The 8-2 drubbing at united wasn't because they were way way way way better than us, even with a weak team. If we had played a more balance 442 and look for a draw, we probably would have gotten it. RVP and any striker including Chamak can coexist. Don't forget that RVP has a bit of #10 in him. He is capable of putting in good passes forward and can move in between the 1 and 2 striker position during a match. Chamak is very good at the second striker role then the lone striker role. He can hold the ball track back work hard, and move behind the defender at the far post for headers. RVP and Park can work with Park speed and ability to get behind the striker. I wonder why hasn't he play yet? Does anyone know why?

• 24-Oct-2011 14:22 | | GunnaFiya
  

  Don't get me wrong i liked your write up(that may not have come across with my first post) that is why i took the time to write because it made me think.
  
  I guess i'm just a hurt fan who is tired of seeing and feeling the same disappointment every season. Financially, i think we are moving forward which will possibly pay off in the end - i hope - but in terms of personnel over the last 5 years we have not improved on the quality players coming into the squad(since Wenger's previous successful squads).
  
  A sprinkle of a quality signing here and there over a few years is not good enough for a top team trying to win trophies. Personally, i believe this is directly related to the tactics we employ and such is the fact this system was originally used to strategically improve us defensively and also allow Cesc to be the creative hub. He is gone now. So why are we still trying to play the same way? Asking players who couldn't do what Cesc does while he was here and injured to do that now is kind of forcing the issue IMHO... He is a special player and only another top talent would suffice to replace him in any way shape or form. Either that or a change of tactics...

• 24-Oct-2011 14:53 | | Zama
  

  Well thought out & extremely well written article.
  Firstly if we go back to 442, we'll obviously miss a fraction of all the possession we currently enjoy. Also as you rightly said we currently dont have any first teamer who would work hard enough to win it back. Having said that we do need to find a solution to the dependence on RvP as also the fact that our no. 10s (i.e. Ramsey, Rosicky, Benayoun) dont seem to be making those advanced runs as also we are lacking a potent passer from deeper in our own half. Right now Song seems to be our best passer with all due respect to Arteta & Rambo. Besides after the summer upheaval the team would take some time to forge the understanding required for our one touch passing. Like I had posted on tweeter we do need another player to step up, be it wide forward or midfielder and do a Bobby Pires. As for the question in your heading, no it isn't - not atleast with this group of players. This team has grown up playing variations of 433 - So right now 4-2-3-1 is our best bet.

• 24-Oct-2011 15:11 | | hazzaboy21
  

  Re 4-4-2 being better defensively I would say it's more down to personnel than systems when discussing defensive security. Take the example of Arshavin. Though he would be closer to the FB in a 4-4-2, his general tendencies would still expose that FB.
  
  Also, too much is said about simply tracking back imo. It's no good just sitting in front of your FB if you don't actually track the run of the opposition winger/FB. The majority of our current wingers/wide forwards can follow an opponent back but have an irritating knack of switching off at the wrong moment, thus letting the winger/FB run past them.
  
  Tracking is one thing. Marking and maintaining concentration is another.

• 24-Oct-2011 18:09 | | sircozy  - ...
  

  we dont have natural wingers inorder to turn to 4-4-2...only Gervinho is real winger..united,liverpool,spuds use the flanks n it pays off...Theo is inconsistent on the flanks.

• 25-Oct-2011 00:10 | | Oranje_sky
  

  Well thought out piece sir. I've seen this idea floating around twitter a lot. I think for me, I'd like to see us at least try a different formation when things aren't working for us. it can feel like we get too predicable sometimes. I'd like us to at least have something else to fall back on and I think a partner for RvP could help with that.
  
  Impressive stats regarding Theo as well. He's gotten quite a bit of flack lately and we all tend to fall into similar mind sets regarding players so it's nice to see some actually statistics and not just opinions.
  
  Great blog!

• 25-Oct-2011 08:11 | | hazzaboy21
  

  Thanks Jess!
  
  Theo has got a lot of flack recently and the difference, in my eyes at least, between last season and this is his service.
  
  As I wrote in the 'Penetration' part of my 3 P's, Cesc was able to spot his runs from out to in quicker than anyone else. RvP would also drop deeper last season enabling Theo to take up the vacated space. With the combination of no Cesc and RvP becoming more orthodox we've seen Walcott having to conjure up more chances for himself - not his strength.
  
  The next step for Theo, if he isn't to be usurped in the wide forward role (which I still think suits him best), is to develop the confidence to try and beat his man on a regular basis. Not only on the outside but on the inside too. That would make him even more potent and would certainly silence the doubters.

• 25-Oct-2011 12:15 | | GeorgeC  - Why not employ a 4-3-1-2?
  

  Not sure 4-2-3-1 is the best system for this group. Why not a 4-3-1-2 formation?
  
  Yes, it'll immediately exclude Gervinho & Walcott from the side unless they play as the 2 strikers, it will however solve 2 of our biggest questions.
  
  i) Midfield composition & system. Why do we have Arteta, Benayoun Diaby, Song, Wilshere have their positions altered, and more importantly, Arshavin? In a 4-3-1-2, we can have the 1 link man who can create for the strikers, and we have proven specialists there, Arshavin, Benayoun, Rosicky, Wilshere. That leaves players like Arteta, Diaby, Frimpong, Ramsey, Song to play centrally as they desire, but behind a true play maker.
  
  ii) Crossing & Width. Where will this come from some may say? We already fire in so many crosses,that a) lack quality, & b) have no receivers. Having the full backs in sole charge of this means we can get the bodies in the box to meet the crosses, rather than aim for just 1, we can have 2 strikers in the box plus 1/2 from the midfield 3 plus a playmaker on the edge of the box for rebounds.
  
  This 4-2-3-1 has been created to serve some players, namely Fabregas now RvP, however that means the collective doesn't add as much value. A 4-3-1-2 plays into most of the squads desires I think.

• 25-Oct-2011 12:18 | | GeorgeC  - Why Not Employ A 4-3-1-2
  

  Also, the change in formation meant that we have lost players like Bendtner, Eduardo & more than likely Vela, the 1 striker system has destroyed our firepower as a collective.
  
  AW also sold Adebayor as he wanted a 4-3-3 and was unwilling to play RvP wide, hence we lost a top striker, waited a year for Chamakh and are probably still calling out for such a top striker like Adebayor.

• 25-Oct-2011 13:03 | | richie  - GC thats a bridge too far!
  

  Adebayor was never and has never been a top striker! We got one decent season from him in 3 years in which he bagged 25 goals, that was the year our team was set up for him to score. He joined us from Monaco where he hadn't done the business, left us and went to Man City where they quickly realised he wasn't up to the task, went to Real Madrid at the request of Mourinho and never made it past the loan stage, and now Harry the twitcher has taken him on loan mainly because he hopes he'll have a point to prove against Arsenal.Its a toss up between him and Bendtner as to who was better in their own minds? Bendtner thinks he can be the greatist, Adebayor thinks he is the greatist. Neither has managed to convince anyone yet.

• 26-Oct-2011 06:13 | | MeanLean
  

  Hey Zama,
  
  How's things? Hope you are well.
  
  Long time no see.

Write comment

Your Details:

Name:

Comment:

Title:

Message:

Powered by Compojoom comment 4.1.7 stable